Candeub is arguing here that businesses, particularly banks or internet platforms, may be foregoing profits and potentially engaging in discriminatory practices by refusing to provide services to lawful industries like fossil fuel extraction or gun manufacturing based on political or social views. The concern is that such refusals could undermine market fairness and raise ethical issues, as these businesses are selectively excluding certain activities or customers, not on legal grounds but on ideological ones, which may conflict with principles of free commerce.

Again, no examples are provided of either a bank or an internet platform refusing service to an entire industry. The bigger question is, can private businesses operate as they see fit, or can’t they? The right to refuse service is well-established. Is 7-11 “discriminating against” people who have objections to wearing shirts and shoes? No. It’s “No shirt, no shoes, no service.” Restaurants often post publicly that they have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. The authors of Project 2025 are a bit all over the place on this point. You can’t champion the idea that businesses should operate independently of most government regulation, then turn around and regulate who they’re allowed to do business with or the social and ethical practices they wish to follow.

I will point out here that it’s not that Candeub simply isn’t in the habit of providing examples. Every single time he brings up social media censorship, he cites the erroneous and debunked idea that the Biden Administration attempted to censor political views on Facebook and Twitter. This leads me to believe that since he hasn’t provided examples of the other things he’s claiming are problems, it’s because no such examples of these problems exist; debunked or no.

Full contextual analysis of Section 5.4: Federal Trade Commission here.